Blog Archives

If Sodomites have “Human Rights”, Why Should Incestuous Couple Not Have Them?



It had to happen at some point. 

An incestuous “couple” (mother and son; just so you know why you are vomiting) have just started their very public “human rights battle”. 

Can’t say they are wrong. 

They are both adult, and willing. Thinking with the stupid XXI century, they are “not doing harm to anyone”. Actually, they are not causing any physical harm, whilst sodomy causes a lot of physical harm (ask any sodomite on the receiving side. Thankfully, I can’t say anything about the other one). So, let me ask stupid England once again: why should they not be allowed to live like Elton? 

The truth is this: people have Truth inscribed in their hearts. As they get perverted by strange religions (like the religion of peace, and the church of niceness) they forget the truth inscribed in their hearts, or better said these truths become so faint that they are easily overridden by the prevalent religion of tolerance. 

But this does not happen all at the same time, or in one generation. It happens gradually. One generation is “pitiful” of the fags they despise. Their sons think the fags should be able to “marry”, because they “lurv”. Their nephews will think it “lovephobic” than people do not want that a man screws his own mother.

It’s all in these little words, “not doing harm to anyone”, you see. Those who think that way have forgotten what a sin is, what fear of the Lord is, what decency and purity are. They have been so brainwashed by the “lurv” society, that they drift one sin at a time; and every time, they cannot understands why they were resisting that particular sin in the first way.

The next generation might call you “lovephobic” like this one calls you “homophobic”. The following one will cal you “dogphobic” or “sheepphobic”, and you know why…

The worst thing is that they might dare to call themselves Catholic.

They might  even have a Pope, Francis III, who encourages them in this thinking via ambiguous apostolic exhortations and extremely verbous and just as stupid encyclicals.

The good news is: Truth can never change. Unless they repent, those who scream “homophobia” in this generation, “lovephobia” in the next and “dogphobia” in the following one will at death go there, where they get an awful lot of time to reflect about their rebellion.  

We keep praying our Rosary, like our grandfathers. Keep believing what our Grandfathers believed. Keep praying, and waiting that this punishment goes to an end.



Incest: The Perv Judge Is Right


moronic libtards




In Australia, a feminist (male) judge has just let the world know one day the world (and today, himself) may not have any problem with incest.

I quote from the article:

A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural” but is now widely accepted.

Well, how can you say little perv is wrong?

Homosexuality was regarded (by Christian societies, I add myself) as criminal and unnatural, but it is now widely accepted. When oen forgets Christianity and the only thing that count is self-satisfaction, why would two consenting adults not be allowed to screw the brains out of each other amidst the “celebration” of the wider society? Is anyone being hurt? Are not the two consenting? and most of all: who are we to judge? 

The little perv goes on making a Nazi remark, and a feminist one.

The feminist one is the following:

“If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”

There is only one thing more pathetic than a man posing as the defender of “women’s right”: a homosexual man posing as the defender of “women’s rights”. I smell faggotry here, but again it’s just me.

The Nazi remark is reported as follows:

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

“Look”, he says, “what are all these antiquated notions? To contracept and abort is perfectly legal, and not “judged” by us enlightened women and women of the XXI century; let the sibling do what they please, and if a byproduct should occur you just get rid of it. Simples”. 

You know what? Pervert chappie is right. In a world where abortion is on demand, extremely cheap or completely free, with no questions asked and no stigma of sort attached, there is, if we follow the logic, no reason to think otherwise. 

It’s all included in the logic of the acceptance of sodomy: if the logic of accepting what is made among consenting adult is fine, why should the same logic not be applied to siblings, or – and I insist on this issues, because it is perfectly true – dogs, sheep, or mules? 

Pervert chappy is totally rotten.

But I must say, he has explained in a very clear way how rotten post-Christian societies are.


Three Cheers For Cardinal Bagnasco


Apparently, an authentically charitable Cardinal: Angelo Bagnasco.


I hope that my regular readers approve my stance, but there is no doubting in the general corruption of everything Catholic these days the comparison – often read on these columns; very rarely elsewhere – of sodomy with abominations like zoophilia, incest and pedophilia tends to “offend” the more sensitive natures; either because they are poorly instructed and polluted by the politically correct climate of our time, or because they simply want to feel “good” and “sensitive”, which has in itself become the new religion of the shallow and the outright stupid.

It might, therefore, be of some use in your discussions with friends, relatives and perhaps even colleagues of yours – as long as this does not imperil your job, of course, which I would not find very prudent – to know about this nice statement:

“Why say ‘no’ to forms of legally recognised co-habitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say ‘no’ to incest? Why say ‘no’ to the paedophile party in Holland?”

Please read it again and notice the – if I may be so bold – Mundaborian brutality of such an utterance. This must be some SSPX religious like Bishop Williamson, surely?

Well, erm, not quite. This most orthodox Catholic reflection – and most charitable one – comes from none else than the Number one of the Italian bishop, the present head of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco.

I do not know the details of Bagnasco’s Vatican activity, and do not know what sins of neo-modernism and V II-ism he is answerable for.  But I would say there is some reason to hope they will not be many, and not so terribly grave.

Be it as it may, as an Italian living in Albion I cannot avoid noticing the difference with our coward in chief, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols (no, no link: use the search function on the right hand column and you’ll find more than you wished for…).

I can also scarcely imagine this Cardinal abandoning himself to senseless modernist blabber about Mary Ever-Virgin, or about the new mantra of Archbishop Mueller, Extra Ecclesiam Omnia Salus.

I wanted to mention this episode to you, as our natural – and right – focus on what is wrong with today’s Church should not let us forget that here and there there are still people able to – more or less occasionally; some of them regularly, like Cardinal Burke – upheld Catholic values even ehn – and particularly when – unpopular, rather than prostituting Catholic doctrine to the need for popularity and Kirchensteuer  revenue like this tool here.

As they say in Italy, even in a lake of mud* you can find the occasional water-lily. Cardinal Burke and, hopefully, Cardinal Bagnasco are two of them.

Let us not be too despondent, or pessimistic about the future.

Dio vede e provvede.


* “mud” is the word I chose with regard to the sensitive among you. You generally hear a different one….

Christmas 2030: Frank And Christy Adopt Little Jennifer

“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”
Boris Johnson, when he still said what he thinks.

I am heartily sick of hearing people say “why this shouldn’t be allowed” and “why are you against that” concerning matters of obvious moral relevance. When such words are uttered, you can be sure that “they don’t harm anyone” is not far away.

Whenever I hear such expressions, it seems to me that “not harming other people” has become, in the mind of many, the only perceived criterium of morality. If one wants to commit suicide but “doesn’t harm anyone” (beside himself, I think it’s meant), then he should be free to demand to be put to sleep like a dog; the same reasoning applies to many of the other absurdities nowadays smuggled as “human rights”.

Christians have a different system of values, but they are not the only ones having values different from “provided that he doesn’t harm anyone”. In fact everyone has them, they merely forget it whenever appropriate. Ask your liberal interlocutor what he thinks about incest and bestiality and you’ll see him recoil like an artillery gun in a WW II documentary, but without giving a satisfactory answer as to why homosexuality should be allowed and incest and bestiality forbidden.

The reality is that the only reason why homosexuality is not forbidden anymore, but incest and bestiality still are, is simply that some perverts are better lobbyists than others. Look at suicide and euthanasia and you’ll see the same process happening again.

If we apply to everyone the same criteria of “human rights” I fail to recognise why, say, two siblings of 22 and 26 – both perfectly happy with their respective “partner” – should not claim the same “human rights” of two males, or two females. The dangers for the offspring’s health can certainly not be a criterium as liberals tend to be great supporters of contraception and abortion. Besides – and if we want to be really progressive – mandatory sterilisation would certainly put an end to the issue. It goes without saying that the “couple” would then be free to adopt, making the joy of the gutter press by every “Zachary”.

Also very funny is the argument about anyone (say, a male dog of adequate dimensions and an assenting adult female) being “harmed” by sexual intercourse when it is evident to the least enlightened that the introduction of a human penis into a human sphincter is an equally disgusting but certainly a more difficult and potentially harmful exercise. Still, the same people who are disgusted at the mere mention of the girl don’t have any problem in talking of “same sex relationships”, and I’d love to know why.
I imagine that this is what 50 years of liberalism have done to their brains, and to their conscience. Dr. Goebbels would be proud.

A society where everything that doesn’t cause harm is allowed is a society open to every form of disgusting behaviour. Of course, in reality every society has some moral criteria; but modern society has substituted the coherence and solidity of a divinely founded system of values with a random approval of some perversions and punishment of others without any coherent motive as to why.

If you approve of Elton John and “partner” living together and adopting a child then you must explain why you don’t want to have Frank and Christy, the couple in “sibling partnership” down at the 23, informing you that they have adopted little Jennifer; or why you don’t want to be invited to the civil partnership ceremony between Joanna – the mature woman who is always the first to say “good afternoon” and is never short of a smile – and Thunderbolt, the three-years old male of West Highland White Terrier so much devoted to her. (Disgusting, uh? Well, now you know what I think when I read about the parents of “little Zachary”…..).

If you want to have morals, you must limit the “freedom” to be gravely immoral. You can’t have a system in which freedom and individual conscience is the basis of morality because this is a social system open to debauchery of every kind.

Next time you hear of more or less famous “civil partnerships” think of Frank and Christy, or of Joanna and Thunderbolt.

If you don’t wake up, one day they could be your neighbours.


%d bloggers like this: